





































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Glass 

Book 




% 








{ 
























EX-GOVERNOR HAHN 


ON 


LOUISIANA LEGISLATION RELATING 


TO 


•n'to 





T(59fl 


Washington, April 12 , 1866 . 

Hon. T. 0. HOWE, 

United States Senator from Wisconsin : 

f i.1 i .*> li Hit io siioi' i )D ! ' vo Of dfcl'J'MJMi h n A ,niH£i 

Dear Sir: —In compliance with your request, I send you herewith a pamphlet con¬ 
taining all the laws passed by the present Legislature of Louisiana bearing on the 
freedmen. You will see that the Legislature was proud of its achievements on this 
subject, as it ordered the separate promulgation and circulation of these laws. A 
careful perusal of the pamphlet will convince you that however much credit may be 
due for the skill with which the animus of these laws was sought to be disguised, 
there is nevertheless really very little desire to do justice to one-half of the popula¬ 
tion of Louisiana evinced in this legislation. 


» ’l 

The first law— “An act to provide for and regulate labor contracts for Agricultural 
pursuits’' —requires the freedmen “within the first ten days of the month of January 
of each year” to make contracts for labor for a whole year. The contract must be 
made in writing before a Justice of the Peace—elected by the influence of rebel em¬ 
ployers—and two “disinterested” witnesses. Would neighboring planters and rela¬ 
tives of the employer be “disinterested” witnesses? The written contract is “con¬ 
clusive evidence of the intent of the parties thereto.” All disputes arising between 
the parties shall be decided, and the decisions enforced, by the Justice of the Peace 
of the ward in which the parties reside—this means the ward in which the employer 
votes. The “ heads of families” are to make the contracts, hiring out all the mem¬ 
bers of the family able to work, “ which shall be binding on all minors of said fami¬ 
lies.” As the negroes have not been allowed to keep family Bibles, and have been 
denied the rights of baptism, &c., it will be an easy matter for the “oligarchy'** to 
keep such as they choose below the age of majority, until they become quite gray. 
This would only be carrying out the old system of misrepresenting the ages of slaves 
when they were to be sold. Any violation of the contract, or inhumanity or cruelty 
on the part of the employer, must be redressed of course through the means of a law¬ 
yer before a “ Court of competent jurisdiction;” but any remissness on the part of 
the freedman is to be attended to by the Justice of the Peace, and the fear of 
being “forced to labor on roads, levees, and other public works, without pay,” is 
constantly brought to his mind. But the gist of this law is really in the ninth sec¬ 
tion—all the other sections were framed merely for the appearance of things, and to 
pave the way for this well-considered and important section, which is six times longer 
than any other section in the act. All the advantages of the employer are here in- 


; » » 









geniously concentrated and crowded into one paragraph—pretty long, to be sure, but 
in a very elegant and moral tone nevertheless. Its author has evidently read the Ten 
Commandments, however much he may pervert their spirit. It commences with an 
onslaught on the “eight-hour” men who are now with a manly dignity demanding 
their rights in Louisiana, and after covering a great deal of ground, winds up with a 
wicked provision about a pretended “common fund” into which all funds are to be 
placed, to be divided among the laborers. Considerable advancement in morals is 
shown in the refreshing provision that “ swearing” in the presence of the employer 
shall be deemed “ disobedience.” Judgments under this section are to be entered by 
the employer, but if not satisfactory to the freedman “ an appeal may be had to the 
nearest Justice of the Peace and two freeholders, citizens, one of said citizens to be 
selected by the employer and the other by the laborer.” How grateful the freedman 
must be for this right of appeal from the decisions of his adversary ? The Justice of 
the Peace, elected by the votes and influence of the employer, together with a free¬ 
holder selected by the same party, are to meet another freeholder named by the col¬ 
ored man, and exercise appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of the planter. This 
is called “ fair play!” The homely story of the Indian, who said “ You don’t say 
turkey once to me,” will serve as an illustration in this case. 

The second act—“ To prohibit the carrying of fire-arms on premises or plantations of any 
citizen , without the consent of the owner ”—is intended to disarm the negroes, even those 
who have fought in our country’s cause, and is clearly contrary to that constitutional 
provision which declares that “ the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall 
not be infringed.” 

The third act—“ To prevent trespassing ”—is intended to prevent freedmen from 
leaving the plantations on which they are employed, and from visiting each other ; 
and to prevent white Union men, even ministers, from seeing or conversing with them. 

The fourth act makes an important change in the vagrant law of Louisiana. It al¬ 
lows a Justice of the Peace, by demanding any sort of a bond for good behavior, in 
such an amount and with such sureties as he may choose, which it would be impos¬ 
sible for the freedman to procure, to “ hire out” the latter for one year to a planter, 
or “ cause him to labor on the public works, roads, and levees.” You will see that 
under what the pro-slavery oligarchy would call a “judicious administration” of this 
law, slavery is practically enforced. 

The fifth act—“ To provide for the punishment of persons for tampering with, persuading, 
or enticing away, harboring, feeding , or secreting laborers, servants, or apprentices ”—is a 
new dress to an old law for the punishment of Abolitionists. The words “slaves” 
and “ owners” are done away with, and other words, less harsh to the humane ear, 
are substituted. 

The sixth act—“ relative to apprentices and indentured servants” —makes it the duty 
of public officers to report “all persons under the age of eighteen years if females, and 
twenty-one if males,” of certain conditions, “ coming within the purview and mean¬ 
ing of this act,” so that some petty officer of the parish can “apprentice” them. In 
all cases when the age of the minor cannot be ascertained by “record testimony,” the 
petty officer “ shall fix the age, according to the best evidence before him.” If a good 
lawyer like yourself had drawn up this act, the words “ testimony” and “evidence” 
would probably have exchanged places. But it is evidently the work of an employer. 


3 


I hope the second section—which pronounces “ valid and binding” contracts made in 
the United States or “ in a foreign country” for the term of “ five years”—is not in¬ 
tended as a Coollie enterprise. 

The seventh and last act—“ to punish in certain cases the employees of laborers or ap¬ 
prentices ”—is intended to revive the old slavery regulation that colored persons shall 
carry “ written certificates” or “ passes,” and to punish such “ Yankees” as may dare 
to employ any negro who has not obtained a written discharge from his rebel em¬ 
ployer. 

I have thus hastily called your attention to only such leading points in these laws 
as have struck my eye in a cursory glance over them. A careful analysis of these 
acts would convince any man of their true intent, which is to keep up a sort of slave¬ 
ry in spite of the new constitutional amendment. To a man who has lived in the 
South, and seen the workings of the “ institution,” the connection of one sentence or 
word with another, and the practical operation of the various provisions of these 
laws, when administered by pro-slavery officials, are seen at a glance. I assure you, 
they are precisely what Mr. T. W. Conway, lately assistant commissioner of the Bu¬ 
reau of Refugees, Freedmen, &c., in Louisiana, called the ordinance relative to the 
police for colored persons within the corporate limits of the town of Franklin, La., 
“slavery in substance.” The more you examine them, the more you become con¬ 
vinced of their enormity. But you will not be surprised at their unjust and wicked 
provisions when you are informed of their authorship. 

Ducan F. Kenner, of Ascension Parish, La., is their worthy parent. No liberal 
action from him towards the poor colored persons he had so long held in bondage 
was to be expected. He knows no merit about a negro, except as a beast of burden 
that may serve the heavy planting interests. For many years before the war he was 
a “big” planter, and on one occasion, while a member of the Legislature, he modestly 
and repeatedly voted for himself for United States Senator against that other Con¬ 
federate worthy, John Slidell. He was elected a delegate to the Montgomery Conven¬ 
tion by the Louisiana Convention which adopted the infamous ordinance of secession. 
He helped to frame the Confederate Constitution, and was then elected to the Con¬ 
federate Congress. He remained a member of that rebel body until General Grant 
extinguished the Confederacy, when he availed himself of an early opportunity to 
visit Washington and seek, not a “last ditch,” but a pardon. Armed with his pardon 
he hurried to Louisiana, dismissed the officers of the Freedman’s Bureau from a fur¬ 
ther preservation of his property, and now instead of going to work like a good 
farmer (in imitation of Reagan) and repenting, he immediately procures an election 
to the State Senate, and there becomes the author and advocate of the new slave 
laws. 

With such material in the Southern Legislatures, what good can be expected ? If 
“reconstruction” is to be entrusted to such “intelligent and influential rebels,” what 
can we hope to achieve for the good of the country ? It is under the lead of such men 
that all the vicious, disloyal, and disgraceful legislation for which the present Legis¬ 
lature of Louisiana is so notorious, has been effected. 

As to the disloyal character of the Legislature, I will let the published declarations 
of others speak. 

Colonel A. P. Field, of New Orleans, writing to Senator James W. Grimes, says 
that at the election of November last, the “ rebels” succeeded in electing “ the entire 
Legislature—but one single Union man elected to the lower house, and none to the 
Senate;” 




4 

1-Ion. R. C. Richardson, of New Orleans, writing to Ex-Governor George S. Bout- 
well, says: 

“ A prominent member of the Legislature, and an old secession leader, stated to 
me in conversation, a short time before the election, that he was a stronger secessionist 
than he ever was, and that he hated the United States Government from the bottom 
of his heart, and if he ever got a chance he would strike a death-blow at it. I state 
from memory nearly his own language. 

“ Now, sir, I am prepared to assert that at least nine-tenths of his colleagues enter¬ 
tain the same sentiments, leaving out one solitary Union man elected from one of 
the country parishes. 

“ All their proceedings, so far, sustain this conclusion.” 

Hon. H. C. Warmoth, of New Orleans, in his argument addressed to Senator 
George H. Williams, of the Reconstruction Committee, after speaking of other rebel 
influences in Louisiana, adds : 

“ And finally the Legislature comes with new enactments, in order to more effect¬ 
ually, if possible, destroy the friends of equal suffrage and equal rights. And thus 
without opposition or question re-enslave the colored people.” 

Captain D. E. Haynes, who served in the Union Army and commanded a company 
of Louisiana scouts, in a letter on “ Reconstruction,” addressed to the President, 
speaks thus: 

“ According to the constitution of Louisiana, no man is entitled to vote who has not 
been a resident of the State twelve months previous to the day of election, and three 
months in the parish. Yet in the city of New Orleans upwards of three thousand 
votes were polled for the rebel candidates by the returned rebel soldiers and registered 
enemies who were absent from the State three years previous to the election. Thou¬ 
sands voted in the country parishes who never took the oath of allegiance, and many, 
very many, voted who were worth upwards of $20,000, unpardoned by the President. 

“ The result of this election proved conclusively 1 their laudable desire to renew 
their allegiance’ by electing to both branches of the Legislature none but avowed 
rebels, with but one single exception.” 

Mr. W. J. Blackburn, editor of the Iliad, published at Homer, (Clairborne Parish,) 
Louisiana, successfully demolishes the “ Loyalty” resolutions of the Legislature, in an 
article over his individual signature. He says: 

“ The secession, or war ticket, triumphed by an unprecedented majority—triumphed 
because the individuals thereof had in the main been blatant secessionists, and still 
held to and openly avowed the heretical notion of the right of secession, and claimed 
moreover the right and propriety of asking the General Government to pay for their 
former slaves, liberated by the rebellion, etc. I repeat, the entire ticket in the parish 
of Clairborne, a parish of large white population, and deemed the most conservative 
portion of Louisiana, Avas elected upon the secession or war influence and prestige ; 
Avhile every Union candidate was voted down on the opposite ground. And this is 
the recent indication from the people, upon which the Legislature of Louisiana would 
fain fabricate, and sent forth protestations of genuine loyalty to the national au¬ 
thority.” 

, He closes an account of a meeting he addressed, thus : 

“ And when I got on the stump to speak, and declared in the menacing face of 
treason, that I gloried in the Star Spangled Banner, and loved the Government of my 
Fathers, and held that the National Government was entitled to m3' first and stongest 
allegiance, men who had taken the Amnesty Oath would get up in disgust and leave, 
and threaten me with violence, saying, 1 lie says he loves the Government of the 
United States —I hate it!’ And these things I can also prove by tangible testimony, 
giving names, time, and place; and they form a part of the recent indications of that 
peculiar loyalty, by virtue of which the so-called Legislature of Louisiana would 
seem to fain hope to crush out the true men of the country. And verily, it is the 
very kind of loyalty to do this thing—it is all it is fit for, and such is all it aims to 
accomplish. He “who abets the one, aids to accomplish the other.” 


5 


But why should I accumulate the opinions of citizens, however trustworthy and 
honorable, when a simple statement of facts cannot but bring you to a similar 
opinion ? 

The Legislature elected its officers on account of distinguished services to the Con¬ 
federacy, and the criterion of success was persistent devotion and bitterness in the 
rebel cause. 

It refused to have the American flag about its halls until some colored ladies formally 
tendered it one as a present, which offer, however, was indignantly ignored. 

It refused action on a resolution offered by Mr. William Brown, of Iberville, as 
follows: 

“Whereas, In the opinion of this body, the Government of the United States is 
the best Government on the face of the earth, and whereas the flag of the said Gov¬ 
ernment is worthy of all respect ; therefore be it 

Resolved , That the Sargeant-at-arms of the Senate be directed to procure a large 
United States flag, and to have the same properly and tastefully arranged over the 
President of the Senate’s chair. 

Shortly after its assembling the Senate expelled Mr. Wm. Brown, the author of the 
foregoing resolution, and some other Union Senators, who held over in their term 
from the previous Legislature, on the pretext that they were elected by a small vote 
of Union men before the rebels had given up the Confederacy, and returned home. 

The Legislature has invited Gen. Hood, (who was badly whipped by Gens. Sher¬ 
man and Thomas,) and other rebel Generals to seats within the bar, &c. Gen. Sher¬ 
idan, whose head-quarters.are in the same city, and but a short distance from the 
Legislative Halls, was never invited ;—neither was Gen. Scott, nor any other Union 
General then in New Orleans. 

The Legislature attempted to do away with the ratification of the anti-slavery con¬ 
stitutional amendment by the previous (loyal) Legislature, by annexing conditions 
and giving a peculiar interpretation to the second section. But Secretary Seward 
was too quick. He declartd the Amendment ratified and counted the vote of Louis¬ 
iana before the vote could be annulled. 

The Legislature has assumed the extraordinary work of repairing and making new 
Levees for the benefit of the wealthy planters, instead of charging it to them and 
their localities, as always hitherto required by custom and law, and thus compelled 
those who have repaired and kept in order their own levees, as required by law, or 
who need none, to pay for the neglect of rebel planters who refused to perform their 
duties and went into the war against their country. They have even obtained aid in 
this matter from the National Treasury through the War Department, and it has been 
publicly stated that negro soldiers have been compelled to work at this business. 

The Senate rejected the nomination of a worthy officer as Adjutant General of the 
State, because he had been identified with the Union army. About forty Notaries 
were nominated and all were confirmed except one who in the opinion of this patri¬ 
otic Senate had disgraced himself by having accepted an honorable office from Mr. 
Lincoln and by having been Secretary of a Freedman’s Aid Society. Only one Sen¬ 
ator, Hon. John Purcell, of New Orleans, voted for his confirmation. If this should 
be suggestive to the Senate of the United States, and induce a like careful scrutiny 
into all Federal nominations for Louisiana, it would inaugurate a terrible clamor and 
complaint. 

Even the ministers selected to pray for the Legislature were taken from among the 
most loud-mouthed and unrepentant rebel parsons. Not a loyal minister of New Or¬ 
leans was ever invited to call down God’s blessings on these unforgiven rebels. That 


6 


worthy graduate of South Carolina politics, Rev. B. M. Palmer, was the chief minis¬ 
ter at the Legislative Altar. This man on the 20 th November, 1860, before the mass 
of the people of Louisiana had seriously thought of secession, desecrated the pulpit 
of the First Presbyterian Church of New Orleans, by a well-prepared sermon arguing 
for the “ divinity ” of slavery, and urging the people to secede at once. His Sermon 
was published in the secession newspapers and in pamphlet form, and extensively 
circulated as an excellent campaign document in the interests of the rebellion. He 
prostituted his high calling as a follower of the meek and lowly Jesus, to publicly in¬ 
cite and endeavor to deceive and madden the hitherto reluctant people of the Union 
City of New Orleans into electing the Secession Ticket—a result deemed impossible 
without his efforts. With how much success, let the result in New Orleans, the con¬ 
sequent secession of the State, which could not have taken place without that result j 
let these and the dire consequences to Louisiana of that sad and fatal step tell the 
tale. He took good care to be absent from the city on the arrival of Farragut and 
Butler ; but he was not generous and decent enough towards his benefactors to 
refrain from publishing a letter while safely within the lines of Dixie, censuring such 
members of his New Orleans congregation as had renewed their allegiance to the 
United States. He has been permitted, by a kind and beneficent Government which 
he tried hard to destroy, to return and again preach in his former church. But I re¬ 
gret to say, I have seen no Sermon of repentance from his glib pen or lips, published 
in any paper, to atone for his past treason. Even Judas, after he had betrayed Christ, 
repented and hanged himself. But traitor-parsons like this Palmer neither repent 
nor hang themselves. 

The Legislature, on the very last day of its session, about three weeks ago, to the 
neglect of a great deal of other important business, hurried through both Houses the 
following resolution: 

“ Whereas, We are informed that the Superintendent of the Freedman’s Bureau for 
the State of Louisiana is proceeding to enforce the collection of a tax levied by mili¬ 
tary order in the State of Louisiana, to refund money expended, or to provide funds 
to be expended by the Federal authorities in the education of freedmen in this State ; 
and, whereas, sufficient provision is made by the Constitution and laws of the State, 
without any resort to this extraordinary and oppressive mode of taxation, in the pre¬ 
sent and exhausted and impoverished condition of the country"; and, whereas, we are 
informed that the collection of this tax on a former occasion was suspended by Gen. 
Fullerton, when superintendent of freedmen for Louisiana, under instructions from 
President Johnson : therefore— 

“ Sec. 1 . Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Louisi¬ 
ana in general assembly convened , That General Howard, general superintendent of the 
Freedman’s Bureau for the United States, or in his default, the President of the Uni¬ 
ted States be respectfully requested to suspend the further collection of said taxes, 
and to procure or make a revocation of the orders upon which they rest, and that the 
President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives be requested 
immediately to communicate this resolution by telegraph to Washington, and to draw 
upon their own warrants the actual expenses incidental out of the contingent funds 
of the tw r o Houses.” 

This is on a par with everything emanating from this Legislature on the subject of 
the freedmen. 

The action of the Legislature is not the first attempt made by the “ oligarchy” to 
avoid the payment of this eminently just and proper tax for the support of freedmen’s 
schools. General Banks levied this tax (March 22, 1864) for the purpose of placing 
within the reach of the freedmen “ the elements of knowledge which give intelligence 
and greater value to labor, &c.” President Lincoln was clearly in favor of colored 


7 


education, as is shown by a letter which he addressed to General Banks in August, 
1863, (a copy of which at the same time he sent me.) In this letter he expressed his 
views with regard to what he thought should be done in Louisiana towards what is 
now called “reconstruction.” He wrote : “ Education for young blacks should be in¬ 
cluded in the plan.” Yet this moderate tax, levied for the most commendable object, 
constantly haunts the wealthy secessionists and destroys their sleep. 

Last summer, Mr. Jacob Barker, a member of Congress elect from New Orleans, 
(who has been here to take his seat, but finding he was not welcome, has returned 
home,) carried about a petition to General Canby, and procured many signatures, 
praying that the order for this tax might be annulled. The petition contained this 
cool argument: u If the freedmen are to be educated at public expense , let it be done from, 
the Treasury of the United States .” 

Your distinguished fellow-citizen of Wisconsin, General Carl Schurz, happened to 
be in New Orleans at that time, and in his report to the President he very justly ob¬ 
serves : 

“ Many of the signers of this petition, who wanted to be relieved of the school tax 
on the ground of poverty, were counted among the wealthy men of New Orleans, and 
they forgot to state that the free colored element of Louisiana, which represents a 
capital of at least thirteen millions, and pays a not inconsiderable proportion of the 
taxes, contributes at the same time for the support of schools for whites, from which 
their children are excluded.” 

The present Constitution of Louisiana, framed while most of the members of this 
Legislature were in the rebellion, contains this provision : 

“ The Legislature shall provide for the education of all children of the State, be¬ 
tween the ages of six and eighteen years, by maintenance of free public schools, by 
taxation or otherwise.” 

The former Constitution, made in the interests of slavery, used the word “ white” 
before the word “ children.” The members of the Legislature have sworn to carry out 
the constitutional mandate as it now stands. They assert in their preamble that 
“sufficient provision is made by the Constitution and laws of the State, &c.” They 
have made no provision for or sign of willingness to open colored schools, and no 
existing colored school is recognized, fostered, or encouraged by their action. 

The expense of keeping up the colored schools has already been incurred by the 
United States. A large majority of the people, in fact all the Union people, have 
paid the tax. A compliance with the strange demand of the Legislature would be 
injurious and unjust, not only to the freedmen and the cause of public education, but 
would be a reflection and wrong on the Union men who have obeyed the order and 
paid the tax. Their promptness and fidelity in respecting the orders of their Govern¬ 
ment would thus tend to make them appear ridiculous in the eyes of their rebel 
neighbors. The tax is very light, and the request to have its collection suspended, 
coming as it does from rich men, old slaveholders, originates in a decided opposition 
to the education of the colored people, rather than in any reasonable complaint of 
hardship of the requirement itself. 

The author of this request, Mr. Tobias Gibson, I have every reason to believe has 
little or no sympathy with colored men, except like Mr. Kenner, so far as they may 
serve to raise him good crops. He is a planter in the parish of Terrebonne, and, on 
account of his great wealth and more than ordinary intelligence, is recognized as the 
“ Head Centre”' of the “oligarchy” in that section of the State. A letter written by 


8 


him to Hon. B. F. Flanders, a treasury officer of the United States Government, (see 
document 31, accompanying General Schurz’s report,) in December, 18G4, long after 
Louisiana had been made a free State, gives a pretty good idea of his views concerning 
emancipation and “ educational arrangements.” A perusal of his letter will be quite 
entertaining in a literary point of view, as showing the aptness and facility with which 
one in his position can use such expressions as “babblers,” “professional philanthro¬ 
pists,” “ quacks and demagogues,” “our Solons,” “the received dogmas from the inspired 
sources of knowledge at the North,” &c. The parish which he represents in the Leg¬ 
islature was among the first to organize a white militia against Union men, in defiance 
of the Constitution and laws which require the enrollment of all able bodied men in 
the militia. It was in his parish that Bennie and Rongelot were indicted and impri¬ 
soned by returned Confederates as guilty of treason to the State because in the exer¬ 
cise of the American right of free speech, and in obedience to the dictates of hu¬ 
manity, they buried a vulgar prejudice and advocated the claims of their colored 
neighbors to protection. 

Yet this Legislature, after all these and many other exhibitions of its ruling spirit, 
has had the effrontery to pass resolutions alleging itself to b.e “ loyal,” and denouncing 
the “ Radical” and “ fanatical" elements which it sees are ruling Congress. It went 
further. It selected commissioners from its own members to visit Washington, and 
present its pledges of “ loyalty” to the President. All the commissioners had been 
prominent in the rebellion, and had supported the obnoxious measures to which I 
have alluded. I suppose that this settles the question of loyalty. 

Let me say, in conclusion, that all persons lately in rebellion are not as perverse 
and unrepentant as you might be led to infer from this array of facts. Many, very 
many young men of the South were carried into the rebellion by an irresistible cur¬ 
rent. Their hearts were with the Union in the great political contest which resulted 
in war. Many, very many of them have seen the error of their ways, have gone home 
disgusted with treason and traitors, and are ready to stand by the Union and do jus¬ 
tice to the loyal people, white and black. Many of these have seen the war in all its 
phases. It is well to understand the position in which men found themselves during 
the whole time; and for the humble masses who were dragged into the rebellion, by 
moral or physical influences, and who now repent, I bespeak a generous and Christian 
policy of forgiveness. But for the “ intelligent and influential traitor,” like some 
that have been named, who instigated and started the rebellion to maintain and per¬ 
petuate the institution of Slavery,—the traitor who dragged, bullied and frightened 
others into treason,—the rebel who, although forgiven and pardoned for his great 
crime, refuses to forgive and pardon, but seeks by means of the powers of Government 
to make treason fashionable and loyalty odious—for such a traitor I have little charity. 

But, you may ask how can these evils be remedied? How can justice be secured 
the Union men without dealing harshly with the rebels? My answer is ready. Give 
every colored citizen the right OB' suffrage. This will settle all difficulties con¬ 
nected with reconstruction. It is not only just and proper to extend this inestimable 
right to our colored citizens, but it is a debt we owe them. Let the nation be as scru¬ 
pulous in discharging its moral obligations growing out of the war, as it is to pay its 
financial obligations. Let us be true to those who have been true to us. In granting 
this right we obtain security for the future. By doing this act of justice, by paying 
this debt, we close the rebellion. There is no other question seriously dividing the 
people which is not settled, with the discharge of this duty. 

Respectfully yours, MICHAEL HAHN. 


Wm. H. Moore, printer, 484 Eleventh street. 


LbD’ib 































































■ 














































‘ 










































































































































